Palin supported Pat Buchanan in 2000

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

So, to clarify, she either supported Buchanan or Forbes in either 1996 or 2000 (or both).  There seems to be no clarity on which cycle we're talking about or whether she was really with Buchanan or Forbes?

You'll have to forgive us.  We haven't had time to fine tool our attacks on Palin yet.

[Mr. Morden]

So, to clarify, she either supported Buchanan or Forbes in either 1996 or 2000 (or both).  There seems to be no clarity on which cycle we're talking about or whether she was really with Buchanan or Forbes?

See my quoted bits above for at least some facts about the matter (a few posts up).

Well, that only sort of clarifies things.  Wexler accuses Palin of supporting Buchanan in 2000, but I don't know if he's correct because he might be as confused as everyone else seems to be on the subject.

Buchanan says that she was a "brigader for him" in 1996, but is that based on anything more than her attendance at the one fundraiser for him (at which she apparently didn't actually contribute anything)?  Was she attending as an actual show of support for Buchanan, or just to socialize with Alaska politicos who might show up at the rare Alaskan visit by a presidential candidate?  And she worked on Forbes's campaign, but was that in 1996 or 2000?  It's all clear as mud.

[Person Man]

I had a cat that hated Jews once.

I assume you put it to sleep.

No. It was eaten by a fox...or ran away. 

[Sarnstrom]

Anybody who has ever supported Buchanan is nothing more than a kook.

[HardRCafé]

Have we thoroughly debunked this yet?

[Person Man]

Anybody who has ever supported Buchanan is nothing more than a kook.

[Lunar]

Ben Smith on Politico:
A Republican seeking to defend Sarah Palin from association with Pat Buchanan sends over a long press release from Jan. 17, 1996, listing his top Alaska supporters.

Palin's name doesn't appear as a "brigader" — as Buchanan described her — or in any other capacity.

So far, it's just Buchanan's word on her role, then. The campaign didn't have an immediate comment.

This is worth pinning down, and I'll add detail as I get it; any tips welcome.

[perdedor]

Buchanan? Gross. So much for being a "moderate".

For the record, Forbes isn't much better if that happened to be her choice IMO. It's really just a difference between what sort of far-right wing whack job you prefer. The angry white guy kind that hates Jews and long hair (Buchanan) or the pompous white guy with several 18 wheelers worth of disposable income.

[cannonia]

Buchanan? Gross. So much for being a "moderate".

For the record, Forbes isn't much better if that happened to be her choice IMO. It's really just a difference between what sort of far-right wing whack job you prefer. The angry white guy kind that hates Jews and long hair (Buchanan) or the pompous white guy with several 18 wheelers worth of disposable income.

Yeah, it can't stay secret forever.  She's a REPUBLICAN!

[minionofmidas]

Wow. Not only our first Woman Vice President, but our first Fascist Vice President.

"First"?

[Brittain33]

The more and more we learn about Sarah Palin, the more we realize how much of a right-wing extremist she really is. She would be the most far-right president or vice president to ever hold office. She is an ideologue, she is scary, and she needs to be stopped.

When will you stop?  You don't see me calling Obama or Biden left wing fringe nuts.

She is, they aren't. That's kind of all there is to it.

[Sam Spade]

Without any real evidence showing that she was actually involved in Buchanan's campaign, other than Pat's singular statement, this issue will die a simple death on this forum.

[Mr. Morden]

For the record, Forbes isn't much better if that happened to be her choice IMO. It's really just a difference between what sort of far-right wing whack job you prefer.

Well, it does sort of depend on which election cycle we're talking about.  Forbes was kind of the Mitt Romney of the 1990s.  Back in 1996, I'm not sure if he could be said to support any "far-right" policies other than the flat tax (if that counts).  His campaign was purely about economic issues, and he completely deemphasized social issues (and was in fact pro-choice on abortion).  Then, in between the 1996 and 2000 cycles, he had a disingenuous-seeming conversion on abortions and other social issues, and moved well to the right.

[Person Man]

For the record, Forbes isn't much better if that happened to be her choice IMO. It's really just a difference between what sort of far-right wing whack job you prefer.

Well, it does sort of depend on which election cycle we're talking about.  Forbes was kind of the Mitt Romney of the 1990s.  Back in 1996, I'm not sure if he could be said to support any "far-right" policies other than the flat tax (if that counts).  His campaign was purely about economic issues, and he completely deemphasized social issues (and was in fact pro-choice on abortion).  Then, in between the 1996 and 2000 cycles, he had a disingenuous-seeming conversion on abortions and other social issues, and moved well to the right.

I thought he was just another right-wing hack who compared abortion to slavery. Anyways, Forbes was simply right-wing and Buchanan is far-right. I mean, one is basically a fascist and the other one, though being super-rich isn't a bad thing, is homicidally greedy.

[Mr. Morden]

For the record, Forbes isn't much better if that happened to be her choice IMO. It's really just a difference between what sort of far-right wing whack job you prefer.

Well, it does sort of depend on which election cycle we're talking about.  Forbes was kind of the Mitt Romney of the 1990s.  Back in 1996, I'm not sure if he could be said to support any "far-right" policies other than the flat tax (if that counts).  His campaign was purely about economic issues, and he completely deemphasized social issues (and was in fact pro-choice on abortion).  Then, in between the 1996 and 2000 cycles, he had a disingenuous-seeming conversion on abortions and other social issues, and moved well to the right.

I thought he was just another right-wing hack who compared abortion to slavery.

In 2000 maybe.  In 1996, his abortion position was kind of KBH-esque.  In favor of a bunch of restrictions on abortion, but still thinking most abortions should be legal....though he tried to avoid using the actual term "pro-choice".  Here's a sampling of what he said back then:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01EEDB1739F931A35751C0A960958260

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[JSojourner]

There's nothing here.  Move on.

[DownWithTheLeft]

If anything this is positive, it means she saw Bush was not the right guy for the job

[Keystone Phil]

Buchanan? Gross. So much for being a "moderate".

Who the hell called her a moderate?

[J. J.]

So far, that's one of the few things I have against her.

[HardRCafé]

Buchanan? Gross. So much for being a "moderate".

You don't seem to care that there's no truth to it.

[Reluctant Republican]

I’d have preferred she’d have supported Browne, but meh. I would have supported Buchanan in 92, at least, then Perot. The fact that she actually supported Forbes makes me rather impressed with her.

[Brittain33]

This is not going to help McCain make inroads among Jewish voters. They know about Buchanan.

[Daniel Adams]

This is not going to help McCain make inroads among Jewish voters. They know about Buchanan.

How about you actually read the thread before posting?

[HardRCafé]

This is not going to help McCain make inroads among Jewish voters. They know about Buchanan.

You're still pretending there's evidence to support this.

[phk]

If anything this is positive, it means she saw Bush was not the right guy for the job